Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-05
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7333.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Anthony Chan , Dapeng Liu , Pierrick Seite , Hidetoshi Yokota , Jouni Korhonen | ||
| Last updated | 2013-07-24 (Latest revision 2013-06-05) | ||
| Replaces | draft-chan-dmm-requirements | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7333 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-05
Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies (more
Intended status: Informational co-authors on P. 17)
Expires: December 7, 2013 D. Liu
China Mobile
P. Seite
Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
June 5, 2013
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-05
Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments. The hierarchical structure in
traditional wireless networks has led to deployment models which are
in practice centralized. Mobility management with logically
centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues. Such centralized
functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
introduce longer delays and higher signaling loads for network
operations related to mobility management. The objective is to
enhance mobility management in order to meet the primary goals in
network evolution, i.e., improve scalability, avoid single points of
failure, enable transparent mobility support to upper layers only
when needed, and so on. Distributed mobility management must be
secure and may co-exist with existing network deployments and end
hosts.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 6
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Distributed processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
message formats, we can identify a few key common features:
o a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
always-on experience to the user;
o extensions to the base protocols to optimize handover performance
while users roam across wireless cells; and
o extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
for multi-mode terminals (e.g. smartphones).
The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile node
to remain reachable after it has moved to a different network. The
anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by forwarding
packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node. In practice,
most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
Compared with a distributed approach, a centralized approach is
likely to have several issues or limitations affecting performance
and scalability, which require costly network engineering to resolve.
To optimize handovers from the perspective of mobile nodes, the base
protocols have been extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding
between the previous and new points of attachment. These extensions
are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms
of delay. Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead at the centralized
routing anchor point [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
Unfortunately, today we witness difficulties in getting such
protocols deployed, resulting in sub-optimal choices for the network
operators.
Moreover, the availability of multiple-interface host and the
possibility of using several network interfaces simultaneously have
motivated the development of even more protocol extensions to add
more capabilities to the mobility management protocol. In the end,
deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.
As an effective transport method for multimedia data delivery, IP
multicast support, including optimizations, have been introduced but
by "patching-up" procedure after completing the design of reference
mobility protocol, leading to network inefficiency and non-optimal
routing.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
traffic delivery. The presence of content providers closer to
Internet Service Providers (ISP) network requires taking into account
local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility
services. Moreover, when the traffic demand exceeds available
capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as
selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO
[TS.23.401]) through alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN) [Paper-
Mobile.Data.Offloading]. A gateway selection mechanism also takes
the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303]. These
mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing
reasons. Assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in
roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to
voice services only. Charging and billing require solutions beyond
the mobility protocol.
Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from the
development of mobile architectures with fewer levels of routing
hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management
system. This trend towards so-called "flat networks" works best for
direct communications among peers in the same geographical area.
Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture
would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the
user.
Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
periods of time [Paper-Locating.User]. Specific IP mobility
management support is not required for applications that launch and
complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected to the
same point of attachment. However, currently, IP mobility support is
designed for always-on operation, maintaining all parameters of the
context for each mobile subscriber for as long as they are connected
to the network. This can result in a waste of resources and
unnecessary costs for the service provider. Infrequent node mobility
coupled with application intelligence suggest that mobility support
could be provided selectively, thus reducing the amount of context
maintained in the network.
The distributed mobility management (DMM) charter addresses two
complementary aspects of mobility management procedures: the
distribution of mobility anchors towards a more flat network and the
dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility protocol support as an
enabler to distributed mobility management. The former aims at
positioning mobility anchors (e.g., HA, LMA) closer to the user;
ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with the first-hop
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
router. The latter, facilitated by the distribution of mobility
anchors, aims at identifying when mobility support must be activated
and identifying sessions that do not require mobility management
support -- thus reducing the amount of state information that must be
maintained in various mobility agents of the mobile network. The key
idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some of the
constraints of previously-standardized mobility management solutions
and, by doing so, it can avoid the unnecessary establishment of
mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor.
This document compares distributed mobility management with
centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can
be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory
requirements as well as the optional requirements are given in
Section 5. Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section
6.
The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in
this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These
terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
(LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
as per [RFC3753].
In addition, this draft introduces the following term.
Mobility context
is the collection of information required to provide mobility
management support for a given mobile node.
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
of the protocol stack. At the IP (network) layer, they may reside in
the network or in the mobile node. In particular, a network-based
solution resides in the network only. It therefore enables mobility
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
for existing hosts and network applications which are already in
deployment but lack mobility support.
At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol supporting session
continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
between the two. In Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address (CoA) takes the
role of the routing address. The binding between these two is
maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor). If packets can be
continuously delivered to a mobile node at its home address, then all
sessions using that home address are unaffected even though the
routing address (CoA) changes.
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network.
3.1. Centralized mobility management
In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
the persistent node identifier and the locator IP address of a mobile
node (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor. At the same time,
packets destined to the MN are routed via this anchor. In other
words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).
Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
in Figure 1. Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the
home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IPv6
[RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively. Current
cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) GPRS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
(EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too. In
particular, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS
Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) in the 3GPP
GPRS hierarchical network, and the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW)
and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network all act as anchors
in a hierarchy.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
3G GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1. Centralized mobility management.
3.2. Distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple
networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile node in any of these
networks may be served by a nearby mobility function (MF).
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| MF | | MF | | MF | | MF |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
+----+
| MN |
+----+
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed. In the
former case only the data plane is distributed. Fully distributed
mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
plane are distributed. Such concepts of data and control plane
separation are not yet described in the IETF developed mobility
protocols so far but are described in detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-
scenario]. While mobility management can be distributed, it is not
necessary for other functions such as subscription management,
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
subscription database, and network access authentication to be
similarly distributed.
A distributed mobility management scheme for flat IP-based mobile
network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized
mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and
extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature.
Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a
future flat IP architecture, it is recommended to first consider
whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended to
serve a flat IP architecture.
4. Problem Statement
The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the
following:
PS1: Non-optimal routes
Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
route. The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
multicast packets.
PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architectures such as distribution of content delivery.
Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
flat network architecture.
PS3: Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
context maintenance function among different network entities
with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single
points of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The
impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
mobility management can be far greater as well.
PS5: Unnecessarily reserving resources to provide mobility support
to nodes that do not need such support
IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
parameter of mobility context is always used. For example,
some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
handover to maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire
application session runs while the terminal does not change the
point of attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g. SIP-based
sessions, can handle mobility at the application layer and
hence do not need IP mobility support; it is then more
efficient to deactivate IP mobility support for such sessions.
PS6: (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
communication
Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for
peer-to-peer communication. Peer-to-peer communications have
particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
mobility support from the network. Thus, the associated
mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
keep alive signaling, etc.) wastes network resources for no
application gain. In such a case, it is better to enable
mobility support selectively.
PS7: (Related problem) Deployment with multiple mobility solutions
There are already many variants and extensions of MIP.
Deployment of new mobility management solutions can be
challenging, and debugging difficult, when they must co-exist
with solutions already in the field.
PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic
IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
solutions (e.g. RFC6224) may lead to convergence of duplicated
multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity
(e.g. MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when multicast subscription
for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels
(e.g. PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
prone to be received through different upstream paths. This
problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
mobility environment.
5. Requirements
After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
deployment in Section 3, this section identifies the following
requirements:
5.1. Distributed processing
REQ1: Distributed processing
IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
of some flows so that traffic does not need to traverse
centrally deployed mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-
optimal routes.
Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility
anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (b) the
significantly larger number of mobile nodes and flows call for
improved scalability; (c) single points of failure are avoided
in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally
deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
are mitigated in a distributed system.
This requirement addresses problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in Section
4. (Existing route optimization is only a host-based solution. On
the other hand, localized routing with PMIPv6 addresses only a part
of the problem where both the MN and the CN are located in the PMIP
domain and attached to a MAG, and is not applicable when the CN is
outside the PMIP domain.)
5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for
example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
network, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
IP address. However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
all times for a mobile node.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
there is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
problem PS6 in Section 4.
5.3. IPv6 deployment
REQ3: IPv6 deployment
DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses
and/or NATs are used.
Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen in mid-
to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more
common than today.
This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in solving the
problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be able to use some of
the IPv6-specific features.
5.4. Existing mobility protocols
REQ4: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.
Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
less error-prone.
This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
development and therefore their potential problems of being time-
consuming and error-prone.
5.5. Co-existence
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on
the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
that do not support DMM protocols. The mobile node may also
move between different access networks, where some of them may
support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.
Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
desired.
This requirement addresses the following related problem PS7 in
Section 4.
5.6. Security considerations
REQ6: Security considerations
DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security risks introduced
by DMM into the network. Such considerations may include
authentication and authorization mechanisms that allow a
mobile host/router to use the mobility support provided by the
DMM solution; measures against redirecting traffic to the
wrong host when providing DMM support; signaling message
protection for authentication, integrity and confidentiality.
Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may become
newly possible or easier to mount due to the introduction of
DMM. Proof of possession of past and new IP addresses may be
needed.
Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks since
they carry critical context information about a mobile node/
router. For instance, a malicious node can forge a number of
signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its
legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a
denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive
their traffic. As signaling messages may travel over the
Internet, end-to-end security between communicating hosts must
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
be required.
This requirement addresses the problems of potentially insecure
mobility management protocols which make deployment infeasible
because platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data
loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to the
user.
5.7. Multicast
REQ7: DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions in flexible distribution
scenario. This flexibility pertains to the preservation of IP
multicast nature from the perspective of a mobility entity and
transmission of multicast packets to/from various multicast-
enabled entities. Therefore, this flexibility enables
different IP multicast flows with respect to a mobile host to
be managed (e.g., subscribed, received and/or transmitted)
using multiple multicast-enabled endpoints.
Motivation: to consider multicast early so that solutions can
be developed to avoid network inefficiency issues in multicast
traffic delivery. The multicast solution should therefore
avoid restricting the management of all IP multicast traffic
relative to a host through a dedicated interface on multicast-
capable access routers.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 in Section 4.
6. Security Considerations
Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security
considerations. The first consideration is on access network
security required between the mobile host/router and the access
network deploying DMM. It allows only a legitimate mobile host/
router to use DMM. The second consideration is on end-to-end
security required between nodes that participate in the DMM protocol.
It protects the DMM signaling messages.
It is necessary to provide sufficient defense against possible
security attacks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and
protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance,
EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security,
while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
7. IANA Considerations
None
8. Co-authors and Contributors
This problem statement document is a joint effort among the numerous
participants. Each individual has made significant contributions to
this work and have been listed as co-authors.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication
Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from
Research to Standards, June 2012.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues, Journal of
Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, Feb 2011.",
Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless Wireless
Mobility, February 2011.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.
Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
2008.
[Paper-Locating.User]
Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communication
International, 1995.
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006.
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]
Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", SIGCOMM
2010, 2010.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
[RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.
[TS.23.401]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TR 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.
[TS.29303]
3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.
Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan (editor)
Huawei Technologies (more co-authors on P. 17)
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Dapeng Liu
China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
-
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org
-
Melia Telemaco
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
-
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
-
Jong-Hyouk Lee
RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne
Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
Email: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
-
Kostas Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
-
Tricci So
ZTE
Email: tso@zteusa.com
-
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
-
Peter McCann
Huawei Technologies
Email: PeterMcCann@huawei.com
-
Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
-
Wen Luo
ZTE
No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
-
Sri Gundavelli
sgundave@cisco.com
-
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
-
Carl Williams
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2013
MCSR Labs
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
-
Seil Jeon
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
-
Sergio Figueiredo
Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
-
Stig Venaas
Email: stig@venaas.com
-
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Email: lmcm@tid.es
-
Juan Carlos Zuniga
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
-
Alexandru Petrescu
Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
-
Georgios Karagiannis
Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
-
Julien Laganier
jlaganier@juniper.net
-
Wassim Michel Haddad
Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
-
Dirk von Hugo
Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
-
Ahmad Muhanna
amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
-
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2013 [Page 19]